D&D General I'm a Creep, I'm a Powergamer: How Power Creep Inevitably Destroys Editions

[Scott Christian]

I disagree that gamers want power creep.

There is a player/DM side to this. I think you are right, most DMs don't want power creep in their players' characters. I think most players want it though.

 

[Mannahnin]

There is a player/DM side to this. I think you are right, most DMs don't want power creep in their players' characters. I think most players want it though.

I think players want to do awesome stuff.

In general if you ask them whether they enjoy power creep, most would probably say that in theory they dislike it and in practice they don't like the feeling of "needing" to buy more stuff to "keep up", but they like options and new shinies. And books which include new options and shiny toys almost inevitably wind up causing some power creep.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Like, face it, back when TSR folded, WotC was going to want to put out a new edition as new owners. That was bound to happen whether 2e was suffering power creep or not. Moreover, the rules bloat of 2e was arguably worse than the power creep. Also, game design had advanced a great deal since the 2e chassis had been rolled out, and WotC was far more in tune with design of the day than TSR had been.
Suggesting 2e -> 3e due to power creep is, at the very least, an oversimplification.

Further thoughts: I'm speculating that what players are really consuming when they play a game is novelty.

4e kept power creep at a minimum by making new releases offer new archetypes that did not stack on old archetypes.

The two bolded things have historically been so closely joined as to be almost indistinguishable.

AD&D 2nd Edition is an interesting case. And here, I'm going to focus on the part of 2e that comes before the Player Options era, and also before some of the late 'faux leather splatbook' era (I think everyone agrees that era having some very clear power creep).

Now, 2E comes out and incorporates some of the mid-level power creep from UA like the first level of weapon specialization and boosted demihuman level limits, but not some of the over-the-top attribute generation methods or Cavalier stat progression or the like. Overall, the rules are kind of a wash compared to 1E --some things have fluctuated, but not overthrown established relationships*, which mostly remain the same.
*initiative rules have changed, but MUs still want to hide behind meat shields to not have their spells disrupted; Thieves get to distribute their %s as they see fit, but their best strategy is still to game the DM to not have to roll the dice at all, etc.

Almost immediately, a massive number of red-brown, green, and blue paperback accessories come out with options for specific character and campaign types. This bloated the rules rapidly and over many fields of the game.

And yet, overall, the power creep was small. Most of the new options were lateral moves, or ways to self-restrict power to enhance flavor (be that being a swashbuckler who wore leather and wielded rapiers, or being in a historic setting where magic using classes were rare/ intrinsically restricted).

The most prevalent mechanical option was 'kits,' which generally limited power (weapon/armor choice, behavior, NPC reaction) in exchange for a proficiency slot or two or a situational bonus. The one early book which allowed massive changes to actual class abilities -- The Complete Priest's Handbook -- was by in large a power downgrade.

There were some boosts -- the fighting styles and weapon proficiency groups in The Complete Fighter's Handbook were generally upgrades, and there were some equipment options in Complete Thieves' that would strictly raise some %s here and there, but in both cases generally less so than weapon specialization or being able to focus your thief skills were in the first place (so it less than doubled the shift since early 1E). Even the ever-discussed 'broken' option -- the Bladesinger kit from The Complete Book of Elves -- was really just a strict-upgrade to the non-optimal-in-2E character type of multiclass F-M.

And it stayed that way for quite some time. Character options expanded to underpowered (compared to 1989 core) Vikings, underpowered Camelot campaigns, generally-underpowered* humanoid races (although this did expand the number of options for spending extra proficiency slots on minor combat boosts), orthogonally-powered psionic characters, admittedly not underpowered Athasian characters (but for the record, I never saw anyone try to use those rules outside of a Dark Sun campaign), and so on.*barring a few creatures who could start with 19+ str, or the like.

It really wasn't until 1996's Warriors and Priests of the Realms where I recall there starting to be things that really looked like expanding abilities (IIRC priests of Meilikki who got 18/## str and fighter-level Con bonuses for 17+ con, neither of which paired with the extreme spell-option limits that similar bonuses might have come with in Complete Priest's). Then of course the Player Option series, and all bets were off.

My point is that, while 2e did suffer from power creep, it didn't have to, and didn't for quite a while (including when they were putting out massive amounts of material).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think your arguments here are very cogent, I agree with the general thrust, but having read it over twice now, I don't see that you've actually substantiated the bolded point, except possibly by pointing out that it has happened historically. Can you summarize why the introduction of power creep is an inevitable process? Your analysis of what happens thereafter definitely seems to follow.

Also, I'm curious if it's possible to introduce DM side power creep. It seems to me if you've got a CR system, you absolutely could print the super kobold or goblorc at the same CR as a weaker monster.

I dream of DM-side power creep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My biggest issue with 5E and 5.5E.

I would love for those who have never played old school B/X (and/or OSE) to try it's combat. Combat is fast and smooth.

Because its not all bloated with HP and powers and feats etc

And once you get passed level 1 (and assuming you have gained some magic armor by level 2) it's pretty survivable.

Add a few house rules to jack up survivability and its near perfect. Plays fast and its still D&D. You just dont have 40 different powers and abilities to keep track of.

And really, do you need all that to really enjoy D&D?

Edit: greatest lesson ive learned over almost 30 years of D&D is you only need the core books. Oh and simpler is better.

I agree to some extent. You do only need the corebooks, but I'd prefer they be complex enough to provide a wide variety of options and mechanical representation for both players and GMs. If that means thick books, so be it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As the age of a D&D edition approaches infinity, the number of spells available approaches infinity



The only way to avoid power creep in D&D is to avoid having generalised features. That is: Any feature that belongs to a class belongs to that class only, and later books cannot add new features, only add new classes.

In that case the power creep potential is restricted to a choice made at character creation: Which class do I pick.

What happens in D&D is that some classes (not all) are designed around systems, and later books will release things that expand upon these systems. Spells, for example, is a system that later books add too, meaning that the more books are released the more spells are available an the greater is the risk of power creeps.

Some classes don't have their own systems are more unlikely to suffer from power creep.

It also means those classes are more likely to fall behind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, I agree that power creep is close to inevitable, due to market forces if nothing else. Customers will be excited by a new option that is just slightly better than current options, and therein comes your creep.

However, I am not on board with the idea that every edition gets killed specifically by power creep. There can be many factors that weigh in the business decision to put out a new edition - power creep may only be one, and not even a major one.

Like, face it, back when TSR folded, WotC was going to want to put out a new edition as new owners. That was bound to happen whether 2e was suffering power creep or not. Moreover, the rules bloat of 2e was arguably worse than the power creep. Also, game design had advanced a great deal since the 2e chassis had been rolled out, and WotC was far more in tune with design of the day than TSR had been.

Suggesting 2e -> 3e due to power creep is, at the very least, an oversimplification.

Which is to say, correlation does not imply causation (or post hoc ergo propter hoc, for you legal types).

Just thinking about 2e makes me smile.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I agree to some extent. You do only need the corebooks, but I'd prefer they be complex enough to provide a wide variety of options and mechanical representation for both players and GMs. If that means thick books, so be it.

Want more abilities? Multiclass. Use magic items special abilities.

GMs get to use the monsters that have a wide range of neat tricks.

I have to say, when the players get a magic sword that glows and/or a +1 suit of Plate they are darn sight more thankful for it then they were with your basic +1 sword in 5E. At least in my experience. Heck the mage about had a fit when he found a magic wand.

When your special abilities come from magic items instead of your race/class choice, it makes discovering them and using them far more special. Instead of yet just another Eldritch Blast or At Will Misty Step.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doesn't 4e proof that power creep is not inevitable?

4e kept power creep at a minimum by making new releases offer new archetypes that did not stack on old archetypes.

Some people would rather have power creep than 4e. It's not to every D&D fan's taste.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which then raises the bigger question of whether D&D is better served as a business or as an elaborate non-profit hobby.

Over its history I'd say business-driven decisions have rarely been good for the game itself.

Completely agree. The game is better off in the DIY sphere.